There's a huge difference between respecting credentials and filtering based on them. The former is not binary. I am simply arguing that an IIT degree is neither necessary nor sufficient to be a successful entrepreneur.
I don't think the announcement of a new govt. office is something to be proud of in and of itself. But as a counterpoint to your argument, the SBIR program, also run by the govt. seems to be working really well for startups I personally know without political influence or corruption. I wouldn't say it's the most efficient funding source but it is definitely a net positive.
Actually, I am not waiting for the greencard (seeing how it would take me at least 5 more years to get it). I am waiting to get the startup to a stage where it can sponsor an H1B for me which is very hard to do for reasons mentioned in my previous comments.
There is a difference between the permission to stay legally in the country while working full time on a business and free healthcare and dedicated highway lanes. Those comparisons make me think you are just trolling. The former does not cost the government money, arguably, they will make more money from my business on taxes.
You are spouting generalizations about the immigration friendly nature of America without addressing the basic question: what is wrong with having an easier and non dubious way for someone on an H1B to start a startup?
What's more: you implied, quite baselessly, that going from an H1B to a startup is so easy that only the lazy would have problems doing it. You have not yet provided a single justification for that.
pg also says do a startup full time. There is a reason for that: startups are iterative and you should develop something in close contact with customers. Trying to do it while working on a full time job makes it very very hard.
Secondly, the legal issues both on the immigration side and in terms of working on something while working for another tech company make it a very very very fine line that you have to walk. Conservative lawyers will tell you there is no line, you are breaking the law if you work on something other than your day job period.
Finding a co-founder is like finding a marriage partner (seriously). It is not impossible to find an American partner but limiting your possibilities only makes it a little harder. Plus, you better hope you are a great judge of people because if your American partner walks out, your startup is doomed.
Finally, yes skill based immigration (as Canada does it) is the answer IMHO. But even if they let people who are already in the US on H1B and who are skilled start their startups through a formal visa process, I will be happy.
You came here on an H1B for your own startup? Were you already venture funded? Because it's next to impossible to come here on an H1B for a startup that doesn't have signficant revenue and/or a decent number of customers.
Also it's not generally possible to get venture funding for a US based startup while still in another country. A VC would not want to add "immigration policy risk" to the extensive list of risks she already takes when investing in a startup.
Secondly, assuming you are already here on an H1B working for largeco (as I am), it is also not possible to start your own startup without 1) Having an American cofounder 2) Raising funding and/or getting a large number of customers
Getting customers before you start working on a startup is of course impossible and raising funding before you start working on it full time is also really hard (unless you are already a superstar in your domain of work).
So, really, on what basis are you calling people who want a simplified process lazy?
The fact that the essay is mostly about the other ideas and titled as such does not discount the fact that the argument therein that most people dislike Arrington simply because he is curt is flawed.
pg cites his own curt/succint approach to writing as a reason people dislike him and speculates that people dislike Arrington for the same reason, thus using Arrington as an example for part of his argument. While pg's central thesis in the essay stands, the Arrington example does not.
This is a strawman defence. PG is defending Arrington's curtness when you meet him in person and accepting the facts as presented (since I have no personal knowledge), the defense sounds reasonable.
However, as many others mention below, most people dislike Arrington because Techcrunch has no journalistic scruples. The way they attacked Last.fm without even bothering to properly check into facts was yet another example of this.